One of the eternal bodybuilding questions is:

How big can you get naturally?

Pro bodybuilders and their pimps say that the sky is the limit if you have the right genetics and work like a mad monkey in the gym.

And since the professional constructors of muscle have impressive physiques inducing rapture, the gullible souls listen to the fairy tales infested with lies and deception.

This kind of behavior keeps you in the labyrinth carefully designed by the industry.

What determines muscle growth?

As I tell you in the new book Potential, muscle hypertrophy (increase in the volume of muscle tissues) is dependent on many growth factors.

The two major ones are your frame (bone thickness) and testosterone levels.

By default, people who have naturally high testosterone levels and thick frames are bigger and more muscular than emo boys with a girly bone structure.

On average, men produce between 30mg and 70mg of testosterone per week and have 20 times higher testosterone levels than females.

The muscular development and physical strength of men are highly superior because of that. We may live in the era of the sensitive brah wearing skinny jeans, and yet the average man is still significantly stronger than the average female.

A 165lbs/75kg bench press is considered an elite lift for a woman weighing 147lbs/67kg. A man of the same weight could bench that weight in less than a year and will be barely considered an intermediate.

Why? Testosterone and structure.

There isn’t an exercise program or a nutritional plan that could change this fact.

Even if a woman trains for 100 years without getting old in the process, she won’t be able to match the levels of strength and size presented by males who lift.

This also explains why female bodybuilders are bigger than many natural males. Women who bodybuild are often on gear (hormones) that helps them transform into a monstrosity.

The same principle holds true when comparing natural bodybuilders and male bodybuilders on steroids.

The roid users will always be more muscular thanks to their artificially boosted testosterone levels.

What are the rest of the growth factors?

The growth factors that determine how big you can get naturally are:

Body chemistry

Frame

Muscle insertions

Response to training

Age

Stress

Muscle fiber distribution

Training

Nutrition

Sleep

Overall health

People always underestimate their body fat levels

Many natural lifters who are 25% body fat classify themselves as 17% or even 10% because they can see their first two abs under the moonlight.

After a cut, they are surprised that they have to lose three times more weight to see all their abs than originally planned.

This phenomenon is very common in the Internet realm where everyone is a superman.

Whenever a natural says ”I gained 20 pounds with very little fat.”, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to translate the claim to – ”I gained 20 pounds with more fat than I am willing to admit.”

Can you give me a table with weights?

In 2014, when NattyOrNot.com came to life, I prepared the following table based on my observations in the gym as well as the teachings of popular muscle scholars.

Height

Weight

6′ 2″ (188cm)

197lbs (89kg)

6′ 1″ (185cm)

190lbs (86kg)

6′ (183cm)

184lbs (83.5kg)

5′ 11″ (180cm)

177lbs (80kg)

5′ 10″ (178cm)

170lbs (77kg)

5′ 9″ (175cm)

163lbs (74kg)

5′ 8″ (173cm)

156lbs (71kg)

5′ 7″ (170cm)

149lbs (68kg)

5′ 6″ (168cm)

142lbs (65kg)

5′ 5″ (165cm)

135lbs (62kg)

Note: This chart is based on the following principle: you start at 5′ 5″ (165cm) and 135lbs (62kg) and for every inch (2.5cm) you either add or take away 7 lbs (3kg). Keep in mind that the numbers are just a guideline and are for people who are in contest shape and have favorable bodybuilding genetics.

Shortly after publishing the numbers, I started to receive angry messages from people who were allegedly born bigger than what the table suggests.

I knew this wasn’t the case due to a very simple fact – if you can truly match the numbers from above while being between 5 and 8% body fat, you wouldn’t care about natural limits, for you will look amazing.

The numbers seem shocking not because they are low. They are shocking for two reasons:

People have been brainwashed by the mainstream muscle media (magazines, YouTube, books, movies…etc.) that anyone can be 200lbs shredded.

Natural lifters and bodybuilders are fatter than they think.

The New Numbers

I no longer believe in the numbers presented above. I think they are too high for individuals who don’t have an ultra-big frame, high testosterone levels, long muscle bellies and an amazing response to training. For most lifters, the numbers will be 20 pounds less.

Post navigation

65 comments

Eugene Sandow was 90 kilos for 1m75 . He died 92 years ago. He didn’t train chest.
Peter Krylov was 88 kilos for 1m70. 72 cm waist. He was born in 1871.
George Hackenschmidt was 99 kilos for 1m75, shredded. He was born in 1877.
Hermann Görner was 120+ kilos for 1m85, shredded. April 13, 1891 – June 29, 1956.
Arthur Saxon was 90 kilos for 1m78. 1878-1921.

According to these guidelines all these guys are roided freaks 😀

Come on people can get much better results that what’s mentionned here!

Those stats are fake. The “retro” lifters were much smaller and fatter than you think. They boosted their numbers just like Arnold said he had 22-inch arms, but later they were measured at a little over 19 inches. Moreover, those men obviously had decent genetics.

Get to 200lbs/91 kg shredded to the bone at any height below 6’4″ naturally and call me.

@Truth Seeker hey man… I’ve read your books, thought you made great points. But this right here does not make sense and possibly undermines the rest of your demonstration. How can you say “Photos from the 19 century do not count.”? What is the reasoning behind such dismissal? I hope you will adress this.

What about Bruno Sammartino? Pro wrestler, one-time bench-press WR holder. HATED steroids, to the point that he derailed his own wrestling career rather than be associated with drug users.

He’s listed at 5’10/265# (presumably at his prime). Obviously not “bodybuilder lean,” but still.
_”Photos from the 19 century do not count.”_
Gee, you’d think they’d count MORE, seeing as they aren’t photoshopped.

First let me thank you for this great chart. But I believe you can add about 5 to 8 pounds of lean muscle mass for most gifted natural bodybuilders around 7% to 8% body fat. FOr example I was measured at 11.2% body fat back then at 178 pounds for almost 5’9” tall and it would have given me a weight of 170 pounds at 7% body fat. OK remove 3 pound of water weight and you get 167 pounds. But I did not achieve my peak in bodybuilding. I quite before after 5 years of training. Now take Steve Reeves, which I continue to say he was natural, he competed at 213 pounds for about a 8% body fat at 6’1” tall. Maybe he could have lost some water, making him about 209-210 pounds. But Reeves was really top genetics. Still your chart is very good for having an idea of the average individual, but I would add a 5 pounds error marge. The thing is that now bodybuilders compete so dry that they loose muscle mass without steroids. Going 4 to 6% body fat is simply destroying muscle mass without roids. That is why they are so light and in my opinion are not nice to look at on a stage. There is no more fullness at this % of body fat and they lose a good amount of lean muscle mass.

The author is spot on with these numbers. I checked the video multiple times and there is no way Sandow ways more than 75-78 kilograms at what seems to be 8-10% body fat. And since he was also considered one of the strongest men of his time, he had most probably elite genetics. Cruel, isn’t it? And to the ones rebuking the author’s claim, I suggest you read Sandow’s book. He presents some lifting numbers which are preposterous but it makes sense, since marketing goes further back than the early 20th century.

I like how if anything doesn’t suit your perspective it’s automatically ‘fake’. I’m not even going to bother with reasoning with you, you’ll just think up another BS story to justify your beliefs.
Your probably one of those guys that have spent years doing ‘bro splits’ with little to no results and have come to the conclusion that ‘if I can’t do it, it’s not possible’.

I don’t completely disagree with the article. but you greatly undermine naturals abilities. Sure those numbers are for freaks. But I think most people especially the 6’1 plus will reach 180lbs+ at 10%bf which is respectable by normal standards and its light years behind with what’s steroids users look like even at same weight. As for getting to 200lbs be happy to have it in your dreams unless you willing to be fat.

I’m 6ft 230lbs and natural. I carry some bodyfat, last measured at 25%. I train primarily for powerlifting and focus almost exclusively on the main compound movements and have been lifting for 9 years.
I have seen lifters larger and stronger than I am who I believe to natural.

The figures listed here seem to be what is achievable in a short space of time naturally, most should be able to exceed them given enough time and devotion.

Those stats in the table are for contest ready physiques if I understood correctly. So if you subtract 20% of your weight of fat, you get withing the limits of the table. So much so, that it’s almost like you reverse engineered those stats of yours 😀

You make a good point Hanock, the table does’t really stipulate that you’d go down to 5%.

As somebody more focused in the actual lifts it would be interesting to know what people think is possible naturally there.
My best lifts to date are (kg): 280kg deadlift; 210kg squat (paused); 150kg bench press (paused); 97.5kg strict overhead.

I really think it’s possible to get well into the 300’s naturally on deadlift but it would require years of dedication and great genetics.

Again, those represent what’s possible for the genetic elite. Most of us don’t have top-shelf genetics for building muscle mass, though, so those stats aren’t a pursuable goal for the majority of us average- and below-average-gened guys. But they do reveal that the maximums attainable naturally even by the most-gifted human males are far below what’s attainable with drugs.

I agree… at 200 pounds I was 18% body fat using the navy method… so 0.5% per pound so theoretically I should have been 7.5% at 175 pounds… in reality I was 9.5%… 9.5% looks awesome by the way!! But still the math is not that easy

Robert, You would only be at 187.5 if you were at 10% body fat, and that would be if you lost zero muscle while dropping 34.5 pounds of fat, which isn’t going to happen. Shed that fat and you probably be around 160 at 10%.

Having high testosterone levels comes with health risks. Statistics show mwn with high levels of this hormone are at increased risk of developing enlarged prostrates. Big muscles and big prostrates I guess

This isn’t bad. Maybe it’s just because I never planned on becoming huge, but I found these guidelines encouraging. I started at 5’9 and skinny 140 lbs. After six months of calisthenics, I am around 155 lbs and lean. This has made a big difference in my appearance, even though it is spread over my whole body. Much of my old clothing doesn’t fit any more. I am getting favourable comments both from people who know me and those who didn’t know me before. I feel better, have more confidence, sleep like a baby, and have more success with women.

Natural exercise has a lot going for it, even if you don’t become “big” like a bodybuilder.

I chose calisthenics because I am lazy and don’t want to go to the gym. I also travel a lot and can’t count on having a particular set of equipment. As for nutrition, I am a vegetarian, so I take one scoop (30g) of whey protein concentrate per day to supplement my protein intake, which might not be necessary.

I am hoping that I can reach 160 lbs, 20 lbs over my natural skinny weight. What I like about my calisthenics routine is that I can continue doing this forever, anywhere, and be fitter than the vast majority of men. I understand that in old age, my testosterone will decline and I will get a bit smaller, but I see guys in their 60s and 70s exercising in the park and still looking great.

So I don’t think your numbers, or your message, need to cause despair. The only problem is unreasonable expectations, which I believe you are doing good work in tackling. Thanks!

Alright, I’ve only been lifting for like 2.5 years. I’m 5’8″, 185 lbs, 18% body fat. 185/1.18*1.05 is 164.6 lbs if I had 5%, which exceeds your chart by 5.6 lbs. I’ve never used anything stronger than creatine.

“If” doesn’t work. Get lean and tell me how it goes for you. Also, I bet that 18% is more like 24%. Also, those formulas NEVER work in practice, especially if you are natural. You will always lose more weight. You have no idea what a real 5-8% actually is.

Your math is wrong. If you are 185 lbs, 18% body fat, that means you have 185 * . 82 = 151.7 pounds of lean body weight. This would be 95% of your body weight at 5% body fat, so at 5% body fat, your total body weight would be 151.7 / .95 = 159.7 lbs, which is darn close to the 156 lbs given in the chart. At 3% body fat, you’d weight 151.7 / .97 = 156.4 lbs. Given that the chart is for contest ready physiques (i.e. 3 to 5% body fat), I’d say it’s right on target.

Jeffrey, while your math is right, it’s wrong too, because if he gets down to 5% body fat, he isn’t going to any longer have 151.7 pounds of lean weight. I’m cutting from almost 30% fat content right now, and I started with about 185 pounds of muscle, it’s dropping along with my fat.

Anyone here is welcome to prove me wrong, but you people are fatter than you think you are, because once you get lean, you are going to drop more muscle than you will care too admit.

It’s a proven fact that the fatter you are, the more muscle you can also carry. So the trick is to actually carry enough muscle while being lean to be impressive, and by lean I mean at 12% and under.

Also, most people that are not just outright telling lies to begin with, severely under estimate how fat they actually are.

Hello Truth Seeker, you may remember me regarding your post on Symbolism in the IFBB. I bought your books and I am really enjoying The Haters Synthesis at the moment. You have helped spur on something within me to spread the facts and truth regarding the fitness and health industry and all other bull crap exploitation industries. Thank you for that.

It’s kinda weird I know, but I am sending pictures of myself to your contact@nattyornot.com address as an example hopefully to others of the potential, at least with my situation/genetics that is.

I was going to post them here but I don’t know how so I’ll leave it to you if you decide.

I realize that I cannot prove, nor will everyone believe, that I am a natural and not a drug-induced idiot. I am doing this only to give someone a perspective. The pictures were taken from my wife and believe it or not I am not the type of person that likes to take pictures let alone the bodybuilding type.

My stats at the time of the pics are as follows:
Well over 40 years old. But have done some sort of strength training since I was 15 years old.
Height – 5’9.5″
Weight – 184 lbs
Tanita body fat scale % – 10.2 %
Note: scale was set to “Athlete” mode. Not sure how accurate that really is but I am nowhere near 5 to 8%. I’m probably at 12% or more.
Chest – 45 1/5″ around and 47+” when flexed.
Waist – about 34 1/2″ – 35″ maybe even a little bigger.
Arms – between 15 1/2″ – 15 3/4″ inches flexed while cold. But about 16 1/4″ flexed while pumped.

A few KEY notes to explain what’s in the pics.
1. I had Dieted down slowly over the course of a couple months (basically watching my total caloric intake) trying to remain in a slight deficit over the course of time) from over 200 pounds. I was thick at that weight of 200 lbs. but my waist measurements proved I was just a fat boy. I have done this type of cutting and bulking experiment many times over the last 25+ years and generally speaking the outcome is always the same.
2. Very important – Those pictures and measurements are not what I look like cold. I did sets of push-ups, curls, overhead presses and other “fluff” type movements to get pumped. I also drank a glass of wine in the thought that I would look more vascular.
3. My abs are not as prominent as they could be because quite frankly (who is frank anyway?) I am not at a low enough body fat percentage for them to be noticeable.
4. At a higher body weight I most likely had more muscle mass but a key note is that as I lost overall body fat I did lose fat free mass this is honestly inevitable. A person just can’t keep the same amount of muscle mass on their body as they cut a lot of fat weight, period. I Unless of course a person is on some kind of growth drug, which I was not, am not, and will not partake of. I have tried and tried over and over again throughout the years and I ALWAYS lose some muscle mass during the slimming down process.
5. Whenever I try to slim down the first thing that goes as far as size is my shoulders, arms, calves and neck measurements. This happens when I am focusing on achieving a smaller waistline. I simply can only hold so much muscle mass on my body at a lean weight, and at the same time, I can only add so much muscle mass while trying to bulk up without becoming a dough boy. There comes a point of diminishing returns. For me it’s at about the 185 pound mark. Above that weight I look bigger in clothes but my belly is fat with no visible abs, and I feel like crap, not as athletic, etc. When I am close to the 175 pound mark I am really defined with visible abs but do not look as big in my clothes. My wife likes me a little bulkier so I stay 185+ pounds most of the time. I got to keep her happy right? Haha.

Anyway, I posted this because it seems most guys give all this information about themselves but don’t prove it through pics. Obviously the pics and measurements are a bit tainted because of the fluff exercises I did but vanity took over and I wanted to look bigger.

I am drug-free and will remain so for the rest of my life because I want to be a walking, talking, person of real integrity and character and DO NOT want to put that into my system just to be bigger and more shredded. Also, I want to remain a positive influence to my two sons and their friends as best as I can. I don’t want to be the type of dad that says, “do as I say, not as I do.”
Ya know what I mean?

I agree with a few people who say that you should have specified that those stats are at competition level.

As to the body fat measurements, it’s really difficult, even when using the bodybuilding calipers to get a correct number.

I am trying to get ready for a competition and i am starting to realize that even 10% is hell to achieve.

I guess that the ultimate achievable naturally would be someone like Steve Reeves?

So if your numbers are for 6-8% of body fat, I guess that very few people would get to that number, regardless of weight. And the other way round too, if you are skinny within that body fat range, you’ll never get up to that weight lifting weights.

What % body fat is your natural physique scale considering? The reason I ask is because I’m 5’9 and I weighed in today at 80kgs. Based on my most recent photo, I believe I’m like 12 – 13% bf (hope I’m not underestimating) – can see all 6 abs under reasonable lighting, and look quite ripped under good lighting.

Brah, that new book is like the ULTIMATE GUIDE for newbies. I give it 4/5. I would have loved a few more pictures and graphics to be honest. Maybe you can make a second edition and put them in. Anyway I consider it money well spent.

I share your views on many topics, albeit we have some differences. Thanks, brah. I hope you come up with more material soon. Been following you since iron gangsta by the way.

People grossly overestimate how much pure lean muscle mass they can put on naturally.

I’m 6’3″ and I’ve been weight training for a number of years. During gaining phases, I get up to a body weight of about 200-210, decidedly NOT lean. Then when I cut down to a body weight of 180 lbs, I still can’t even see my abs! If I actually wanted to be in condition for a contest, I would look absolutely emaciated.

Dear Truth Seeker, the vast majority of comments in all your posts reveal that stopping to believe the lies whe tell ourselves is the greatest utopia out there.

Regarding the 5% table, the most important aspect that no-one mentions is:
Who the hell wants to be at 5% anyways? Does it look nice? Functional? Healthy? Worth?

An 10% BF imho is PERFECT aesthetics for anyone out there, is easier to achieve (still needs tons of dedication), easier to sustain, healthier and more robust.
But then again…Illusions. People want 5% BF while lifting more than Eddie Hall, without taking roids, while still shagging a different girl every other day and so on.
I must be inclined to say that you are a huge inspiration for me and know that you are not the only one out there. It is just that brahs make more noise.

Rpd, Nobody actually should want to be below 12% body fat, because strength and health suffers after that. Now I’m not talking about dieting for a contest, I’m talking about going under 12% year round.

What’s wrong with 12%, absolutely nothing. Everyone just wants to brag how they are ripped at 10 percent body fat and have 220 pounds of muscle, whether it’s true or not.

I personally see no reason do drop below 12%. I can pull as much split tail at 12% than I can lower, and in fact probably more.

I’m 26 years old, started training almost exactly 8 months ago, and had no prior training experience. I recently got my body fat % measured and I’m sitting at 21% (much higher than I thought since I can see a pretty defined 4 pack in almost any lighting) and I’m 6’1” and 241lbs. If I were at 6% body fat (pretty low) I’d be about 204lbs. The closest thing I’ve taken to a steroid is Creatine. I’m not a genetic freak.

Sorry for the delay. I didn’t get an email notifying me of your response. I took a recent picture, today, and I currently weigh 255. I have a lot more body fat right now than I did at 241 (when I was measured at 21%) so I’m probably carrying an additional 14lbs of body fat. Seems to collect on my lower abdomin and chest. Here’s the linkhttps://ibb.co/chnhax

This is true. My bones are very thick. My wrists are much thicker than most, along with my ankles. I’m not sure what a shadow pinner is, I’m not sure what TRT is, and I’m only a little familiar with Jason Blaha. Although I can tell you I haven’t taken any illegal, banned, or anabolic substances. I’ve considered it once I stop progressing naturally. I’m also only about 8 months into training. I’m hoping I’m not at my genetic potential. I’m sure after several more years of training I’ll exceed these standards. I also have a workout buddy that I grew up with that’s built similar to me. Similar muscle mass and body weight who will also exceed these standards. Perhaps I’ll revisit and post some updates, along with him if you like, if I ever do a major cut and get down into the 8-12% range.

I think these numbers are about spot-on for average lifters as most of these peg you at a lean ffmi of 22-23, which is about as far as most naturals can go.

Shaving ~20lbs off each figure caps most natties at a ffmi of about 20, which is barely above the average of 19. Surely you don’t believe the average natty only has the potential to move up 1 ffmi point. That’s pessimistic, even for you.

You’re so right, most of my life on gym I was never able to put more muscle mass weight without getting fatter no matter what, like without getting a fucking lard belly at +80kg, now I’m at 73-74kg ectomorph at 1.76cm height, I’m probably around 13% body fat right now and if I intend to cut to get to 8% I would definitely be weightening miserables 65-67kg by the end of it just like your new table suggests, last time I did a cut the only things remaining were my head, nose and ears, never do that shit again, well at least I can try to get stronger while at the same weight I guess.

Hey I bought your book, I agree with you mostly regarding your calculations however here and in your book you say e.g. ‘Weight’: “Height 5′ 10″ (178cm) Weight 170lbs (77kg)” is that lean mass, 5%, 10%, 15% bf? 77kg don’t really mean anything until you apply the bodyfat and lean mass? It can make a world of difference whether that’s lean or at 10%.

Ive trained for 25 years, always natural. 4-6 days a week and damn hard, Different routines, different sets, different rest periods (generally very low amount). Ive done my research, ate very healthily, recovered from numerous gym injuries etc etc. I am now in what I consider very good shape.

I’m 5’11 and range from 79-90kg. At 8% fat I am very sure I’d be pretty much spot on with the table, 80kg, possibly push 81kg. Thats after 25 years of training and diet watching, macros etc

Ive been in hundreds of gyms all over the world. The only guys (natural) ive seen in better shape were more cut than I was. The article stacks up for me and is pretty much what ive discovered. Of course you have a natural limit, otherwise everyone could just grow and grow.

Ive also closely watched ‘non naturals’, some of whom I knew well, many of them over many years. 25 yrs experience tells me its insanity. If you think there’s no trade off you are very mistaken. It take its toll. Put someone on roids (and I do mean any) and watch them age very, very quickly. Perversely they believe they are getting younger somehow, ive heard all the lines ‘gh is the fountain of life’ , its an utterly bizarre statement. ( i studied medicine and also the endocrine system). A trainer at my local gym told me of a ‘new’ ‘medicine’ that made you grow very, very quickly with great strength gains, he had everyone on it. I read medical journals. Had the same effect on the kidneys as 3 courses of roids. Yeah….sounds great.

Just sharing my findings. I aree with the article. Gym is great, but of course you have a natural limit. Short cuts cost in the medium to long term. There’s no real suprises, its all common sense, as with everything in life